On May 19, 9:18*am, Thomas Smid wrote:

[...]

I then showed (post #20) that these papers do not constitute a serious
problem at all for a non-cosmological redshift, by taking the results
from Srianand's paper and modifying their plot to actually include all
the error bars, which shows that without constraining the data by the
local COBE measurement, they are consistent with a temperature
independent of z as well (http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/imgs/srianand.gif
) .


Yeah, except that requires you assume the CMB temperature everywhere
is the same...everywhere but here. Your argument makes no logical or
physical sense.

Not that it matters, I've given you more recent articles that have a
far larger sample of data so I have no idea why you return to
discredited talking points.

[...]

Fine, I have never questioned that the data are consistent with a
(1+z) increase, but the point is that, due to the poor data quality,
each of the sets of measurements on their own is consistent with
almost any other dependence as well (in particular a constant
temperature). And due to the complexity and associated uncertainties
that enter the data analysis for each of the methods, and the
associated possible systematic errors, it is simply unacceptable that
such poor data are only made valid by constraining them externally. As
long as the (1+z) dependence can not be demonstrated consistently by
each of the methods separately, it is even pointless to discuss the
physics involved here. And nothing about that has changed in the last
5 years.

Thomas

Since the data quality has improved in a rather substantial manner,
the only thing that has not changed is your reflexive opposition.
Nobody is impressed by your arbitrary slander of the work of a LOT of
scientists.

How much data must contradict you before you finally give in?